Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: vadum

..but, but, but... we’ve been told that some Frenchman at the time of the founding defined Natural Born as both Citizen parents and Domestic birth and that French law should apply here.

Actually, Rubio has another technicality that could help him above even that argument. Cuba at the time of his parent’s birth, had a protectorate status of the US from the Spanish/American war. There is a case to be made that they did have protectorate citizenship.


I am curious about another issue though. The big argument on NBC is regarding ‘dual allegiance’. How does this apply to Native Americans. ‘Tribes’ (they are called Nations) have a special place under US law in which they have their own governments and can establish their own laws, etc. I’m both a Natural Born US Citizen as well as a ‘citizen’ of the Citizen Band Pottawatomie Nation. Would someone consider this ‘dual allegiance’?


6 posted on 04/27/2012 8:31:55 AM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: mnehring
...and that French law should apply here.

Really? And what "French law" exactly?

12 posted on 04/27/2012 8:38:01 AM PDT by MileHi ( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: mnehring

“Cuba at the time of his parent’s birth, had a protectorate status of the US from the Spanish/American war.”

If that isn’t a strech!!!!!


15 posted on 04/27/2012 8:42:44 AM PDT by Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: mnehring

Now THAT is a very interesting question. It seems to me that tribal “sovereignty” is superseded whenever something important (e.g. tax revenue etc.) is at stake.

For example, in Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation (SCOTUS, 2005) the court looked at a case in which the tribe imposed its own tax on gasoline sales and had sued to block collection of the state tax.

In a majority opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the high court held that the Kansas tax is “nondiscriminatory” and “poses no affront to the [Potawatomi] nation’s sovereignty.”


18 posted on 04/27/2012 8:44:52 AM PDT by vadum (dual allegiance, tribal sovereignty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: mnehring
Being born in a protectorate or territory of the United States very well may not convey “Natural Born” status to that person.

In many if not most cases, you would be a “citizen by statute” in other words a “naturalized” citizen.

Unless you were born in the continental United States, your “Natural Born” status is in question. Alaska & Hawaii could be a problem depending on WHEN you were born. In Obama’s case, WHERE was he born.

The citizenship and naturalization laws are complex regarding territories etc. Many people THINK they know all about it, they are wrong!

If you study this for awhile as I have, you will realize, “you don't know, what you don't know”.

21 posted on 04/27/2012 8:47:17 AM PDT by faucetman ( Just the facts, ma'am, Just the facts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: mnehring
Were you born in the United States? (Reservations are in the United States)

Were your parents citizens when you were born? (I am assuming they were probably born here as well, being so-called “Native” Americans).

Then you are a natural born citizen. Indian, Native American, Hindu, Flat Earther, doesn't matter. Born in the U.S. to U.S. citizens, you are a “Natural Born” citizen”

25 posted on 04/27/2012 8:52:19 AM PDT by faucetman ( Just the facts, ma'am, Just the facts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: mnehring

You’ve identified the whole problem of trying to integrate sovereign Indian tribes: national loyalty.


54 posted on 04/27/2012 9:10:22 AM PDT by backwoods-engineer (I will vote against ANY presidential candidate who had non-citizen parents.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: mnehring

“There is a case to be made that they did have protectorate citizenship.”

No there isn’t.

Cuba was an ‘unincorporated territory’ and it’s people were not granted ‘U.S. citizenship’.

“The provisions for governing American possessions as well as their status vis-à-vis the United States have varied greatly over time. A series of Supreme Court decisions in 1900 and 1901 known collectively as the Insular Cases distinguished between two groups of U.S. territories: incorporated and unincorporated. Incorporated territories such as Hawai’i followed the path taken by other contiguous portions of the United States toward eventual statehood and citizenship for the inhabitants. Unincorporated territories, the Court held, were “appurtenant and belonging to the United States, but not a part of the United States.” Residents of unincorporated territories were not granted U.S. citizenship.”

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/protectorates-and-dependencies#ixzz1tG65kGGp


66 posted on 04/27/2012 9:26:30 AM PDT by Bigh4u2 (Denial is the first requirement to be a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: mnehring

That is an interesting question. Mind you, it wouldn’t be unprecedented - Charles Curtis was a member of the Kaw Nation (born prior to the passing of the 14th Amendment) and was elected Vice-president in 1928.


174 posted on 04/27/2012 2:09:54 PM PDT by JerseyanExile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson